Drop of 8.1 to 7.8 August to September? Why, that's a huge 0.3% drop. We haven't seen that since ... December 2010 to January 2011 when it dropped 0.3%. Or, y'know, November to December 2010 when it dropped 0.4%, both of which would have been to late to impact the midterm elections.

Your assertion that the jobs numbers have been falsified is ridiculous.

Yeah, I don't know where he got that "20+ years" notion. I read (sorry, too lazy to hunt it down) that there have been 12 adjustments of 0.3% or more in the past 10 years. Which is to say, a little more than once a year.

Drop of 8.1 to 7.8 August to September? Why, that's a huge 0.3% drop. We haven't seen that since ... December 2010 to January 2011 when it dropped 0.3%. Or, y'know, November to December 2010 when it dropped 0.4%, both of which would have been to late to impact the midterm elections.

Your assertion that the jobs numbers have been falsified is ridiculous.

Yeah, I don't know where he got that "20+ years" notion. I read (sorry, too lazy to hunt it down) that there have been 12 adjustments of 0.3% or more in the past 10 years. Which is to say, a little more than once a year.

Look, you guys. He meant the raw #s, not the %. Those are more meaningful anyway, duh. Especially when they match the point he is trying to make, you guys.

Drop of 8.1 to 7.8 August to September? Why, that's a huge 0.3% drop. We haven't seen that since ... December 2010 to January 2011 when it dropped 0.3%. Or, y'know, November to December 2010 when it dropped 0.4%, both of which would have been to late to impact the midterm elections.

Your assertion that the jobs numbers have been falsified is ridiculous.

Yeah, I don't know where he got that "20+ years" notion. I read (sorry, too lazy to hunt it down) that there have been 12 adjustments of 0.3% or more in the past 10 years. Which is to say, a little more than once a year.

Look, you guys. He meant the raw #s, not the %. Those are more meaningful anyway, duh. Especially when they match the point he is trying to make, you guys.

Stop being intentionally obtuse, you crazy liberal fucks.

And yet the unemployment rate is measured in %. Show me raw #s that belie that and I might change my mind. Because I can do that.

The number of jobs added for the month represent the largest increase in 29 years. That is a fact, if you choose to ignore it or claim only the percentage increase matters fine.

The best article I've read discussing the issue with the numbers is on CNBC.

That probably has nothing to do with the fact that the US population is larger than at any time in the past 29 years.

What's going to happen with October's numbers? With the holiday coming up will there be an even larger increase just before the election? Or will holiday jobs be adjusted somehow? I can just hear the screams of rage coming from conservative pundits in the beginning of November.

The number of jobs added for the month represent the largest increase in 29 years. That is a fact, if you choose to ignore it or claim only the percentage increase matters fine.

The best article I've read discussing the issue with the numbers is on CNBC.

This is the closest you've come to backing up the assertion, but you provide no link.

I poked around CNBC for a little while and came up with this one that says:

Quote

But the government said the total number of workers employed surged by 873,000, the highest one-month jump in 29 years. The total of unemployed people tumbled by 456,000. The total labor force grew by 418,000, possibly accounting for the relatively modest net level of job growth compared to the total employed. The labor force participation rate, which reflects those working as well as looking for work, edged higher to 63.6 percent but remained around 30-year lows.

I tried combining those numbers in various ways to arrive at the 114,000 drop in unemployment, but there's not enough info to make them work out. If 873k people got new jobs, and 456k of them were previously unemployed, that leaves 417k new workers unaccounted for. If 418k new people entered the labor force then the unemployment rate should have risen by 1k instead of falling 114k, for a discrepancy of 115k. But I can't draw any conclusions without knowing how many of those previously unemployed people retired or died or moved to Canada or whatever. (edit) We also know that employment figures for previous months were revised upward by 86k, so that could cover most of my "missing" 115k...although I'm just guessing.

One might reasonably be skeptical of that top-line 873k number if one were so inclined. The linked story doesn't provide much context so there's plenty of room for speculation and plenty of people eager to speculate.

If there's another story on CNBC or any other reputable source that examines "the issue with the numbers," I'd like to read it.

In September, the household survey showed a whopping 873,000 increase in the number of people who said they found work. Thatís the biggest one-month gain in 29 years. Fact, and reason to be skeptical...

Again, I ask for some kind of reasoning other than "impossible because Obama can do nothing right". Making a claim like that demands something to back it up, otherwise it comes off as petty and childish

I would just like to point out that this place was dominated for 8 years by this mentality toward GWB. And if Romney wins, the P&R forum will see more activity in his first 6 months than it has in the last 4 years of Obama.

In September, the household survey showed a whopping 873,000 increase in the number of people who said they found work. Thatís the biggest one-month gain in 29 years. Fact, and reason to be skeptical...

Again, I ask for some kind of reasoning other than "impossible because Obama can do nothing right". Making a claim like that demands something to back it up, otherwise it comes off as petty and childish

I would just like to point out that this place was dominated for 8 years by this mentality toward GWB. And if Romney wins, the P&R forum will see more activity in his first 6 months than it has in the last 4 years of Obama.

Anyway, whoever wins, we lose. And I don't mean AvP.

I agree with this. It's not like it really matters who is elected. If Romney is elected, the Senate looks to still be Democrat. Democrats with a very large incentive to block everything. So the next two years would look just like the last two years.

If Romney is elected, Obamacare isn't going anywhere (they'll never get the 60 votes to break the filibuster), the large tax cuts probably won't happen, etc...

I would just like to point out that this place was dominated for 8 years by this mentality toward GWB.

Didn't care for it then, don't care for it now. Petty and childish is petty and childish.

Quote

If Romney is elected, the Senate looks to still be Democrat. Democrats with a very large incentive to block everything. So the next two years would look just like the last two years.

Typically in the past, one party has checked against the other in terms of who has majority in the executive and legislative branch. Governing requires compromise and cooperation across the aisle, and our elected officials used to work together to get shit done when it really mattered. I still think one party remembers that, but the other has flat out refused to even consider any kind of middle ground.

Typically in the past, one party has checked against the other in terms of who has majority in the executive and legislative branch. Governing requires compromise and cooperation across the aisle, and our elected officials used to work together to get shit done when it really mattered. I still think one party remembers that, but the other has flat out refused to even consider any kind of middle ground.

I think this is ultimately hurting Romney. Romney really comes across as a moderate when not trying to give the party line. I could see voting for Romney just as easily as I can see Obama. From the way he came across in the debate, I can see him attempting to compromise. I think the Democrats would be apt to help him, they've shown a willingness to compromise over the last 4 years (even on Obamacare, passage excluded).

However, I just can't vote for Romney with the rest of the party being so crazy. Ryan doesn't help balance the ticket for voters like me, he actually makes the ticket worse.

I'm truly curious if the Romney bounce has changed you all's opinion regarding. Romney's chances, not because I need encouragement (definitely not the case, at this moment at least), purely because I'm interested to know of the polls you all put so much value in have changed your thinking at all. It looks like Romney is up in Ohio now in many polls and many other swing states as well.

I'm truly curious if the Romney bounce has changed you all's opinion regarding. Romney's chances, not because I need encouragement (definitely not the case, at this moment at least), purely because I'm interested to know of the polls you all put so much value in have changed your thinking at all. It looks like Romney is up in Ohio now in many polls and many other swing states as well.

What say you?

It changed my mind in that I thought Obama could use the first debate to bury Romney and end the entire election. But now it has shifted it to a case where they will be neck and neck up until the day of the vote. This of course could all change in the next 3 weeks.

Is it too late to hope for a Ron Paul Republican nomination?

Logged

" And they are a strong and frightening force, impervious to, and immunized against, the feeble lance of mere reason." Isaac Asimov

I'm truly curious if the Romney bounce has changed you all's opinion regarding. Romney's chances, not because I need encouragement (definitely not the case, at this moment at least), purely because I'm interested to know of the polls you all put so much value in have changed your thinking at all. It looks like Romney is up in Ohio now in many polls and many other swing states as well.

What say you?

Considering there seemed to be a new poll every other day claiming that a different candidate was ahead, I haven't put much stock into any of them. Heck, there was a new slice of the truth released this afternoon.

Data can be manipulated lots of different ways, depending on what message you're trying to send. The only thing that's looking certain at this point is that it won't be a landslide either way. Will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

I'm truly curious if the Romney bounce has changed you all's opinion regarding. Romney's chances, not because I need encouragement (definitely not the case, at this moment at least), purely because I'm interested to know of the polls you all put so much value in have changed your thinking at all. It looks like Romney is up in Ohio now in many polls and many other swing states as well.

What say you?

I haven't seen the swing-state polls yet, but I don't follow them obsessively. My latest info says that while Romney opened a small lead nationally, he still doesn't have a path to 270 electoral votes and Obama is still favored 70/30 to win the college.

But I've said all along that it ain't over until all three debates are done.

I'm truly curious if the Romney bounce has changed you all's opinion regarding. Romney's chances, not because I need encouragement (definitely not the case, at this moment at least), purely because I'm interested to know of the polls you all put so much value in have changed your thinking at all. It looks like Romney is up in Ohio now in many polls and many other swing states as well.

b) Pretend that the beliefs I espoused as recently as last week never existed and choose to shroud myself an ever-shifting haze of paranoid delusions about amorphous conspiracies that coil and wrap around anything I find disruptive to my preferred worldview.

I choose the one that takes way less effort. I'll leave it to you to figure out which one that might be, Eco-Logic.

All I've ever said about the polls are that I believe it will be neck and neck until the bitter end.

No, you haughtily boasted about Mitt Romney's popularity numbers at a point in time when President Obama was ahead and widening his lead every day, exposing to everyone that you had absolutely no idea what the situation was.

This coincided exactly with a widespread movement across the Conservative media spectrum to convince everyone that every single poll in the country was somehow being rigged. That was last week, or course -- this week, those same polls are completely trustworthy, and the jobs numbers Team Romney have been campaigning on for months have suddenly been compromised.

Normally I'd ask how you reconcile the fact that, because these two realities cannot possibly both be true, the people trying to convince you otherwise are *obviously* lying to you on a continuous basis. With deception this blatant and crude, however, the only real answer is that you don't care.

It may be difficult for you to grasp, but I was responding to Hetz's post where he claimed the election should be a shoo in for the GOP, but because of the poor job Romney is doing it's magically been turned in for a blow out for Obama.

That has never been the case, therefore my first post is accurate, making your condescending refute a waste of time.

I agree completely. I think he really blew it during the Libya section though. Surely you all that support this administration can admit that this Libya debacle is an enormous issue.

Barracks campaign manager had the audacity to say the only reason this is an issue is because of the GOP... Really?

They all blamed it on some pos, poorly made YouTube video that had been out since June and only had 19 views... At least the Justice department has some balls and are calling them out on these shenanigans.